지역커뮤니티의 지속가능한 발전을 위한 환경평가방법론 연구

Abstract

Study of Public Participation on Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development In order to attain sustainable development, it is the task of the time not only to improve the contents of environmental policy, but also to enhance social acceptance, environmental awareness, credibility, responsibility, legitimacy, and openness to public. During the development centric era, it was common to see major policy decisions being made without a slightest participation of those whose lives would actually be influenced by the policy. Tendency was to settle the conflict afterward through persuasion and compensation rather than seeking mutual agreement prior to making decisions. The claim was that making the process open to public would obstruct the project from moving forward. However, environmental conflicts and tensions experienced in numerous national projects in 1990’s taught us a lesson that we need to formulate a social agreement process for the future policy decisions. For this process to be meaningful it is of vital importance to consider such factors as openness of process, enhancement of credibility, environmental sustainability, and social acceptance in policy decision. This research aims to propose a plan to enhance the function of environmental assessment system as a preventive measure against environmental conflicts. Particularly, the study proposes a number of methods with a core focus on public participation. While preceding researches involving public participation were limited to minimum subject matters, serving as a restricted indicator, this study provides numerous options for business entities to choose from and practice based on their own will. Accordingly, fundamental improvement on environmental assessment system will not be the scope of this study. The study focuses on improvement scheme that is feasible under current environmental assessment system. Following is the synopsis of this research and policy proposal according to the table of contents. 1. Limitation of system unable to countermeasure against environmental conflicts There are numerous instances of national projects that failed to prevent environmental conflicts even though Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been conducted. In 1990’s there was a fundamental problem that such assessment scheme excluded administrative planning as a whole, however, revision of law on environmental policies in 2006 enabled a debate on purpose and necessity of planning by enforcing Prior Environmental Review System (PERS) that contains concept of Strategy Environmental Assessment (SEA). Despite the change, there are still limitations with the current system. Following three points abstract the limitations. (See section 2.4) First, current environmental assessment standard based on a ’pass-on-basic requirement’ is being perceived as limited means of environmental control that anyone can pass by maintaining only the minimum requirement. It is urgent to introduce valuation on curve through establishment of specific goals, and comparison and analysis of alternative solutions. Second, there is a general perception that environmental assessment system is a system to consult with the Ministry of Environment. Consultation with the Ministry of Environment can be perceived as mere conciliation within the government. It would not win credibility from the public in case of conflicted situation between the government and the public even though the resolution came from the result of consultation with the Ministry of Environment. It is important to step out of the system serving the mediatory role within the government and to pursue a social level of consent formation. Third, current environmental assessment system stresses itemized assessment based on natural science and engineering. It is a pressing task that the focus be placed on democratic aspects as well. It is necessary to achieve the primary purpose of information exchange system by increasing public participation and information opened to public. For instance, there has been a criticism that public participation and scoping are not being revitalized; however, it is not simply due to the in sufficient methods of public participation or lack of scoping technique. The cardinal problem is that the system needs a revision of its fundamental direction. 2. Need for fundamental research on the EIA system (See complete section 2) In many of preceding researches the scope was limited to EIA system itself, excluding the system’s relationship to the planning process and social decision making structure. Also these researches were conducted under the premise that all assessments to be approved by the Ministry of Environment. In consequences, there has not been a single assessment on the consultation right itself held by the Ministry of Environment. For future researches it is necessary to adopt a different point of view centering on the planning process rather than limiting the scope to EIA system. Researches could investigate the roles and functions of conference organizations and assessment organizations, and explore the characteristics peculiar to those organizations in Korea. In order to achieve it, a new approach driven by necessity based on ’what?’ and ’why?’is indispensable rather than a research of mechanism that focuses on ’how?’. A new type of research that re-evaluates transition of environmental assessment system during the past 25 years and re-analyzes the fundamental flaws of the system, and hence, building a solid ground for project-specific conflict management and environmental assessment is urgently needed. This research should also be able to take a step further and propose an innovative blueprint for future-oriented environmental assessment system. 3. Problems with public participation under current system (See section 2.5) To abstract the problems with public participation under current EIA system and the proposal for improvement, 1) Scope of participants should not be limited to specific group of inhabitants. Instead it needs to be expanded to include general population. 2) Participation needs to be guaranteed throughout all phases of project including scoping stage, preliminary assessment report, and actual assessment report. 3) Various participation vehicles such as Internet and public hearings need to be utilized. 4) Lastly, participation must not end with collecting public opinions. Obligation to explain the reasons for inclusions and exclusions of public opinions needs to be respected and exercised. In order to abolish the qualification criteria set on participant selection, this study uses the term ’public participation’ in place of ’resident participation’. In general, public participation practice is divided into two forms, general civic participation (in forum format) and council (arena format). (See section 3.1) 4. Proposal for general public participation method (See section 3) 1) As a general public participation mechanism for information exchange, it is more effective to exercise conference format than documentation format, bi-directional information exchange format than one-directional information provision, and to utilize public hearings and workshops that enable on-site discussions. (See section 3.2) It is necessary to enhance the research on manual preparation and management techniques for explanation sessions, public hearings, and public workshops. 2) Public hearings need to be revised as form of mediation. (See section 3.3)Existing public hearings play the role of collecting views and opinions, however, do not provide means to mediation and integration. With absence of 3rd party intervention scheme, public hearings lose the ability to mediate in case conflicts rise between public and business entity. Public hearings must stop acting as a basic channel through which business entities listen to public opinions and transform into an authorized mediatory agent between business entities and public. 3) Utilizing participatory technology assessment (See section 3.4) In science and technology fields, participatory technology assessment is being utilized. Consent conference, civil jury system, scenario workshop, and public survey make typical examples. It is the trend movement of technology assessment that attempts to move away from elitism centered on experts and administrators. Based on step-by-step circumstances and localized traits learned from assessment of environment, and characteristics of environmental conflicts (cause of conflict or differences between the involved parties), an appropriate model needs to be applied. For example, it would be effective to utilize a scenario workshop or a consent conference in scoping stage of SEA while focus group interviews or public surveys would be more appropriate in EIA. 5. Validity of participation method using a committee in the form of delegation (See section 4) A council that general public participates serves a purpose as to increase information exchange, however, the impact on decision making is relatively slight. On the contrary, a council in which many specialists and interested parties participate holds substantial political power and therefore makes heavy influence on decision making. Both in Korea and in Japan, validity of participation in council format has been verified. However, not every committee can be successful. Terms and conditions for formation and management of the committee are vitally important. 1) Process of Council Formation Prior to foundation of a committee, a ground for public participation through open forum and survey on the committee organization and management needs to be arranged. Critical decisions such as characteristics, functions, organization, selection mechanism, management rules, and the core body of foundation of the committee, should reflect as many ideas and opinions of public as possible. 2) Characteristics of committeecommittee must assume a characteristic of planning support that engages itself in a wide spectrum of planning aspects ranging from examining the necessity for a proposed plan to forming an alternative solution rather than simply determining validity of proposal submitted by business entity or making decisions. For instance, a committee reviewing a proposal for a new dam under a presupposition that the dam is to be built is likely to fail.Instead committee should be formed as a ground on which problems such as measures for flood control in river area or appropriate forms of public participation and consent formation process are reviewed on the basis of public input. In essence, committee must start the work without any pre-assumptions. 3) Constitution of CommitteeIt is important to involve various bodies (i.e., specialists, citizen’s group) in a committee in order to collect, discuss, and include various ideas and view points. ce also needs an involvement of members experienced in research or practice on public participation and consent development as well as technical experts and people with ability to make sound judgement and maintain a neutral position in the course of debate. Sound and rational measures for member selection and member selection process need to be studied. 4) Management of CommitteeCommittee must operate based on open management principal and organize various open forums and communicate with wide range of public using appropriate channels. Committee must maintain uninterrupted information exchange with the local society in order to earn credibility in the community as well as to achieve agreements on debates. Committee bureau must practice a sound management through participation of 3rd parties such as NPO or specialist. 6. In order to prevent conflicts, it is ideal to utilize multiple methods in combination of general public participation and conferences. Exercising one format doesn’t eliminate the need for the other. It is important that both formats be exercised in conjunction in order to cope with complex nature of conflict elements. Considering that EIA and PERS are both systems centering on planning, adopting various participation of forum format could yield significant impacts. Presume a situation in which the goals for environmental preservation or alternative solutions are determined through various forums such as scenario workshop or conference organized by scoping committee. It will help us move away from existing system centered on consultation with specific organization and mark the first step toward planning-centric assessment system. Various bodies constituting the scoping committee would be the guarantee for forum’s neutrality. However, it is not feasible under the current practice where the scoping committee is perceived as a disposable advisory committee. It is time to drastically change this perception.